Slashdot Mirror
President Trump Directs Pentagon To Create New 'Space Force' Military Branch (defensenews.com)
Gunfighter shares a report from Defense News: President Donald Trump on Monday appeared to sign an executive order directing the Pentagon to create a new "Space Force," a move that could radically transform the U.S. military by pulling space functions variously owned by the Air Force, Navy and other military branches into a single independent service.
"I am hereby directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a Space Force as the sixth branch of the armed forces," Trump said during a meeting of the National Space Council. "That's a big statement. We are going to have the Air Force and we are going to have the Space Force. Separate but equal. It is going to be something. So important," Trump added. "General Dunford, if you would carry that assignment out, I would be very greatly honored." Dunford responded in the affirmative, telling Trump, "We got you." The oddity of Trump's statement was that it was followed up with a White House readout that "contained no language related to the creation of a new military branch, leaving open the question of whether Trump has actually issued formal guidance to the military," reports Defense News. It is believed that Trump still needs the support of Congress to actually establish a space force.
"I am hereby directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a Space Force as the sixth branch of the armed forces," Trump said during a meeting of the National Space Council. "That's a big statement. We are going to have the Air Force and we are going to have the Space Force. Separate but equal. It is going to be something. So important," Trump added. "General Dunford, if you would carry that assignment out, I would be very greatly honored." Dunford responded in the affirmative, telling Trump, "We got you." The oddity of Trump's statement was that it was followed up with a White House readout that "contained no language related to the creation of a new military branch, leaving open the question of whether Trump has actually issued formal guidance to the military," reports Defense News. It is believed that Trump still needs the support of Congress to actually establish a space force.
Dammit
Is there any subject he can't bring racism into?
If we don't have Gundams, what's the point?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Should be in San Francisco.
This kind of stuff takes a lot of money. Is there any proof or compelling evidence that we *need* a space force separate from what our current military provides?
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
.... Seems like cyberspace is the more pressing thing to defend.
We need more federal agencies for the taxpayers to support! Drain the swamp! That is what it means, right?
And then there are all those treaties prohibiting militarization of space ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
True, but it would take an act of Congress to do so. Not just an Executive Order.
Oh, the one-liners almost write themselves.
"It's fascinating to see an administration that's so anti-science enthusiastic about something that requires so much science."
"I hear the first job of the Space Force will be to build a really, really big wall to keep the green people out."
around the whole planet! We'll make space pay for it! And we're gonna tariff the hell our of Jupiter! And any Martians that dare try to sneak through our wall, asylum or not, will have their little baby critters put into a small box and shaken! Because America... errr... Earth!
Thank little baby cheesus for family values and fiscal conservatism.
Moron...
Just don't put it in San Diego because it gets destroyed by terrorists with a leftover nuke in 2157.
This is the worst of Reagan's brean-dead mind boggling expenditures in the name of "conservatism?" and you traitors of no particular ideology eat it up because a traitor promised it? Lol. Mueller's keeping a promise also!
The Air Force has satellites, the Navy has satellites, the Army has satellites. Consolidating 3x management resources into one is mind boggling expensive, how exactly?
I really, really, hope you are trolling.
If serious, it's comments like these that make me just want to turn Amish and disappear into the woods/nature/BFE/etc.
Consolidating 3x management resources into one is mind boggling expensive, how exactly?
So now every satellite can use the same design process as the F-35, so they can attempt to surpass it as the most expensive military boondoggle in history.
You're not hearing about "the treaties prohibiting militarization of space" because there are none.
There is a 1957 treaty about putting NUCLEAR weapons in space.
Did you forget about SDI and the hundreds of military satellites currently in orbit?
They are absolutely keeping children in concentration camps.
First, maybe we should establish a definition of "concentration camp"" According to Merriam-Webster, a concentration camp is, "a camp where persons (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, or refugees) are detained or confined"
https://www.merriam-webster.co...
Next, we should establish that Trump is indeed keeping children in such places [note: I purposely only include foreign news sources for this, so you can't claim some local political bias]
https://news.sky.com/story/hun...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
https://www.standard.co.uk/new...
And when did this new policy of indefinite detention of children start? May of 2018.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...
Further, since people who present at a port of entry requesting asylum have broken no US laws, the Trump Administration is separating children from parents who have done nothing wrong and holding them in concentration camps just to exert political pressure on his opponents.
https://www.vanityfair.com/new...
You are welcome on my lawn.
> all those treaties prohibiting militarization of space
Which treaty is that, exactly? The 1957 treaty talks about putting NUCLEAR WEAPONS in space. The President has not announced any plan or intent to put nuclear weapons in space.
Did you forget about SDI and the hundreds of military satellites currently in orbit? Or for that matter, ballistic missiles, which fly through space? There is no treaty prohibiting militarization of space.
Do you think anyone in his administration has mentioned to Trump that the United States is bound by a treaty, ratified in 1967, which specifically forbids militarization of space?
No one has ever respected that treaty. The US and USSR put weapons into orbit as soon as they practically could. There don't seem to be any nukes (or, at least, none that have leaked, and they likely would by now), but simple kinetic-kill anti-satellite weapons in orbit? You bet. Heck, the USSR had an "armored" sat (presumably slightly thicker tin foil) to smash into other sats as a low tech cheap weapon.
but does he really think anyone but the most dedicated MAGA chud is going to think the SPACE FORCE is anything but the butt of future jokes?
Russia used the same name for years. The Russian Space Forces used to be a separate armed service, now it's a branch of the Aerospace Defense Forces. I've worked with a Space Forces veteran, and I think there's one who posts to Slashdot occasionally.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Trumps' only motivation in anything he does is to feed his own ego. Everything else is secondary to that.
Let's also be clear...
https://slate.com/news-and-pol...
What kind of person takes other peoples children hostage as a "negotiating strategy"??
Yes, I am going to use the T-word, terrorist, in this case.
I may be mistaken but my recollection is that Congress was involved in splitting off the Air Force from the Army and creating a new armed service.
The Army/Air Force split is a good example of how to do it badly. First, the Air Force only acquired the Army's air assets. The Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard still have their own aircraft. Since the Army felt that the USAF was ignoring their needs to close air support, they built a parallel air force based only on rotary wing aircraft (which they were still permitted to have).
So the US has five different air forces, which different aircraft, procedures, and protocols. We are using helicopters in missions where they are inappropriate for purely bureaucratic and political reasons, and the Army's need for CAS is still not being met. When the different branches are forced to work together, such as on the F-35 project, the politics and in-fighting resulted in the worst and most expensive military boondoggle in the history of the world.
Trump absolutely escalated the situation, but the de-escalation is far below the "previous level".
The previous level included regular, albeit infrequent nuclear weapons tests and sabre rattling, which included rocks fired toward and even over Japan. The previous administration's response to all North Korean activity was to literally ignore it.
All of those tests were part of a program to get effective reliable Nukes and long range missiles.
They didn't stop the tests because Trump scared them, they stopped the tests because they got their Nukes and missiles working.
I'm not saying another President could have avoided that, but Trump's threats and bluster didn't avoid anything.
Trump, ignoring all of his inelegance, is the first US President to ever meet with a North Korean leader
Which has been a major NK objective forever. Something Trump should have gotten concessions for (recall the GOP scorn and outrage when Obama suggested he could meet without preconditions).
and, like it or not, he offered two very realistic outcomes to them:
1. Face annihilation in a war that they cannot hope to win with a people too starved to support a long war, let alone with the backing to do it (Kim didn't even fly on a North Korean plane to the meeting because they do not have one that can go that far!).
2. Open up and become a more traditional nation internationally, gaining the investment opportunities and thus money that that brings, while also giving up all nuclear ambitions, which should be easier since their testing site imploded.
That's a lot different than the "previous level".
It's the game NK has played forever, work on your Nukes and endure the rising tensions and sanctions. Then play nice and talk up peace and denuclearization in return for sanctions relief.
I'm sure the same thing will happen again, Kim will say all the right things and get whatever relief he can, up until he thinks his defensive capabilities are falling behind and then he'll start testing again.
I stole this Sig
It looks like five different aviation commands, but it's actually nine, and some say operationally, more. Think: DHS, DEA, NSA, CIA with more likely.
This is a PR stunt, and a sabre-rattling exercise. US space assets are easy targets.... and so are the assets of almost everything out there, given laser and microwave weaponry.
It's all for the fake news press, folks. Nothing to see here.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
What the Hell does this have to do with Reagan? He was a Conservative and a Republican. A real one.
By today's Republican standards Reagan would be a RINO.
I'm still trying to figure out why we need yet another branch of the military. If all they do is space, then what how do they engage in combat?
There is already a "space force" within the USAF. There is also small number of satellites operated by other military branches, as well as civil agencies that have a direct support role to the military. This USAF space force is getting large enough that it's become in effect a separate branch on its own. Not quite the size of the US Navy but if broken out from the Air Force it could easily be on par in size with the US Coast Guard. The USCG is not a military service but it can be called upon to serve in war. There are other services with a military structure that perform support services to the military, and so share a rank structure and uniforms with the military. These services are called "uniformed services" and uniformed services include the military services.
The USCG was already mentioned as one uniformed service that could be called upon to serve under the DOD in war. There is also the US Public Health Services Commissioned Corps and NOAA Commissioned Officer Corps. As I understand it the USPHS has officers that they "loan out" to the various military branches to serve as medical specialists on military bases and ships at sea. The NOAA don't necessarily get "loaned out" like USPHS officers but they operate at sea in parallel with the Navy and USCG for watching the weather. I believe the NOAA has aircraft they fly from Navy and Air Force bases.
Anyway, the point is that even a non-combat capable force may be needed to manage space assets in support of the other military branches. Just like we already consolidate weather forecasting and medical care in uniformed services. The Navstar GPS satellites would be one asset that would be most definitely transferred to the "space force". Then there would be spy satellites and communications satellites, and perhaps even weather satellites even though the NOAA already manages some already. Separating the space force off from the USAF would mean the USAF can get back to flying airplanes and leave the managing of satellites for the benefit of all military branches to the new space force.
Perhaps one combat role the space force could command would be the fleet of ballistic missiles. The space force could be in command of anti-ICBM and anti-satellite systems. As I recall the US Navy has some anti-satellite capability and if this capability is shared or transferred to the space force then maybe we could see the space force with it's own fleet of blue water ships.
It sounds like the USAF wants to wash its hands of the space based military assets, they want to be in the business of dropping warheads on foreheads. Things like GPS and spy satellites are a general military need, not something unique to the USAF. When it comes to things like creating budgets we might see the Army wanting more satellites for something but the USAF not wanting to give up manpower and funds to do it. I guess the Army can get, and likely already has, a small "space force" of its own.
Seems to me this is more of a directive to answer the questions on how this space force would work, what assets it would manage, how large it should be, where it would have bases, what kind of training it would have, and so forth. POTUS can want a new space force but without knowing exactly how it would work he can't bring a proposal to Congress to create it as an entity separate from the USAF.
Besides, what do we refer to the personnel as?
In the early days of the USAF they were called "soldiers" until they agreed on "airmen". Is it correct to use "guardsman" refer to those in the Coast Guard? Those in the National Guard? Both? Neither?
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
I'm still trying to figure out why we need yet another branch of the military. If all they do is space, then what how do they engage in combat?
Space is much like air. You drop things from it that impact the ground. Think of it as an AF drone operator operating a vehicle at a much higher altitude.
That's not military at all. In every branch of the armed forces, every single person has a combat role attached to their military specially.
A family member made that very clear. He was a paratrooper at Bastogne. He shared his frozen hole in the ground with a truck driver who had not fired a weapon since basic training back in the US. The driver was one of the volunteers that brought in the last bit of supplies before the encirclement was complete, they were surround immediately after his truck made it in.
That said, again, how would "space force" personnel maintaining, launching and controlling vehicles from a safe location be any different than AF personnel maintaining, directing and possibly controlling aircraft from an equally safe location in the US or an allied country?
Marines are...well...Sailors with guns, or jarheads, or "couldn't be a seal"s
1. Marines are an entirely separate and independent branch of the armed services. They are not Navy, nor are they sailors. A sailor with a gun is the Yoeman who hit the target once in basic who is then trained (tertiary) as the automatic rifleman in case a shore party is needed. [Not slamming the Navy, that's how another family member described his service. Job 1: manning a typewriter. Job 2: manning an Oerlikon 20 mm AA cannon. Job 3: Shore party, automatic rifleman. He was thankful he only saw combat via job 2. ]
2. Many Marines could be SEALs, they merely preferred to serve as a Marine rather than a Sailor. Similar story for many Special Forces and Rangers. Some Marines are equivalent to SEALs, MARSOC, elements of Force Recon, same standards, skill set and training, cosmetic difference. Similarly some Special Forces are equivalent and arguable superior to SEALs as some SF have a larger skill set. When you have an individual that makes it into SF, MARSOC or SEALs that particular individual would most likely have made it into any of those specialized units, they just preferred one branch of the service for whatever reason. Well, that's how the former Vietnam era SEAL that was a manager at a company I used to work at described it to me. He said selection for all these special operations type units selects for the same thing, basically finding those who were born with a personality type that will just not quit something they start regardless of the physical and psychological pain. He said muscles, weapons proficiency, that was all relatively minor. That nearly any healthy athletic intelligent individual could be trained to be as strong and proficient as necessary. The military has known how to develop strength and proficiency for millennia. The real problem is finding the person born with the necessary personality type that just won't quit.
But yeah, I understand, Hollywood tells you different.
It is required - by law - that the name of this organization always be pronounced: "SPAAAAACCCCCCE FOOOOORRRRRCCCCCE!"
Any other pronunciation would be criminalized.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Rather than the US Space Force being a purely military organization, it would make sense to have a Space Force structured like, and with similar missions as, the US Coast Guard. As people and businesses move into space, we're going to NEED some sort of spaceborne Search and Rescue organization, perhaps with vessel inspection capabilities and missions. Perhaps the Space Force can be tasked with inspecting commercial spacecraft and satellites and ensuring that they aren't hiding military equipment.
And in the event of hostilities, the Space Force would, similar to the Coast Guard, become part of the Navy.
So the US has five different air forces, which different aircraft, procedures, and protocols.
This didn't sound right because I recall reading somewhere that the USCG does not train any of its own pilots, they recruit them from other services. So I did some research and I found that not only does the USCG not train any pilots themselves all helicopter pilots for USCG, USMC, US Navy, and USAF all train at the same Navy base. My guess is that the US Army has a large enough group of their own helicopter pilots that they train them on their own base somewhere but the training is similar enough to the other branches that the USCG will take US Army pilots.
For another example I took a look at the C-130, an airplane I remember an Army buddy saying he took a ride in before. Sure enough it is used by USAF, USCG, US Navy, and USMC. Turns out all pilots that fly a C-130 will train at the same base regardless of which branch they serve.
Each branch certainly does in fact own their own helicopters and cargo planes. Given the size of each branch it makes sense that, as an example, the USCG flies their own HC-130 variant air frames to refuel its helicopters. Just as the USMC flies the KC-130 variant to refuel its helicopters. Given that they all trained at the same school as the Navy pilots it's no surprise that once in a while a US Navy KC-130 will refuel USMC and USCG helicopters and US Navy helicopters will refuel from USMC and USCG planes.
As for the US Army helicopters? Fuck them, they can't refuel from anyone... Oh, wait, that's not right. US Army helicopters routinely refuel from tankers flown by the USAF and other branches.
Perhaps you need to review your assumptions.
We are using helicopters in missions where they are inappropriate for purely bureaucratic and political reasons, and the Army's need for CAS is still not being met.
I can agree that perhaps the Army's need for close air support is not being met this is not because of some kind of miscommunications between the branches. This is because the A-10 air frames that have served this role are getting very old and the DoD dropped the ball on finding an adequate replacement. There's certainly some politics involved here. The USAF wants to be rid of the A-10 because it's a money pit from maintenance issues. There's people in the USMC that are willing to take the A-10 air frames as they see value in the role they serve in spite of the cost. The US Navy is objecting because they are not equipped to provide the logistics for an air frame that cannot be launched from a carrier. The powers that be in the US Army are split on taking the A-10 but that gets to what you point out on the Army being typically barred from flying fixed wing combat aircraft.
When the different branches are forced to work together, such as on the F-35 project, the politics and in-fighting resulted in the worst and most expensive military boondoggle in the history of the world.
The F-35 is a boondoggle. I'm not so sure that the different branches were "forced" to work together on this project. There was certainly promises of sharing resources and therefore reduced costs in the long term. It's not looking well for the F-35 so far, especially as I look at the F-35C carrier based variant.
The F-35 was supposed to fill the role of the A-10 but there's some concern that the current weapons that can be fitted to the F-35 will match the firepower of the 30mm cannon that the A-10 carries.
It comes down to the F-35 being too fast, Army helicopters being too slow, and the just right A-10 getting too old. Perhaps the Army's new V-280 can replace the A-10 if fitted with a cannon.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
> US space assets are easy targets
One of the things I learned while researching the Excalibur article is just how true this is.
The whole idea of SDI was that your defensive systems would be cheaper than the ICBMs, so you could afford to win any possible arms race. And this was true at first glance - the Smart Rocks interceptor, for instance, was basically a big Sidewinder. The problem is that they were housed in a "garage" that contained all the power, comms and detectors, and those could be shot down with a missile the size of a Sidewinder (appropriately delivered) which meant the Soviets would win any possible arms race.
But then there was the killer stroke. Excalibur was an x-ray laser, and throughout its testing, there were questions whether it could actually generate enough energy to destroy a missile. The answer turned out to be "no". But it turns out that the sensors on the platforms, of any sort, are *fantastically* susceptible to damage or blinding by *much* less energetic lasers. So the Soviets could basically blind the entire fleet of SDI sats by deploying a couple of gas-dynamic lasers across the country. And there was nothing anyone ever figured out to address this, one physicist concluded it was "impossible".
Things haven't changed much. ASATs remain very low-cost solutions to taking out an opponent's assets, and because they're so small they can be lofted by really inexpensive launchers. In comparison, the satellite you're attacking is huge and in some cases required an entire Space Shuttle to put it up there.